7710 Background: This trial was aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ip BLM instillation as compared to pericardial drainage alone in pts with MPE. Methods: Pts ≤ 75 y.o. with pathologically documented lung cancer, who had received pericardial drainage for clinical MPE within 72 hours of the enrollment, were eligible. Pts with chemo-naïve small cell cancer, major organ failure, or severe co-morbidity were excluded. Signed consent form was obtained. Pts were randomized to either Arm A: observation alone after drainage, or Arm B: ip BLM of 15mg, followed by additional ip BLM 10mg q48hours. Drainage tube was removed when daily drainage was ≤20mL; the protocol therapy was judged as primary failure, with no regulations on post-therapy, if this criteria could not be met after 7 days from enrollment. MPE was followed at 1,2,4,6 and 12 months by echocardiography. The primary endpoint was survival with MPE control (effusion failure-free survival, EFFS) at 2 months, assumed to be 60% vs. 30%. The trial was designed to provide 80% power with 5% one-sided alpha, with 80 cases. Results: From Aug./99 to Jan./06, 80 pts were enrolled, with 79 eligible. M:F=51:29, median age 60 y.o. (range: 39–75), 75 nonsmall histology, 53 with prior chemotherapy, and 20 with prior radiotherapy. Median drainage volume was 600 mL (range: 130–1930). Cytology of the effusion was positive in 58/76 examined. EFFS ( table ) tended to favor Arm B, with hazard ratio of 0.64 (one-sided p=0.030 by logrank test, 95% C.I. 0.40–1.03). No additional acute toxicities or complications were observed for Arm B. There were 2 cases with late constrictive complications in Arm B, but none was severe. The median survival was 79 days (A) and 119 days (B) (not significant). Conclusions: Although the difference of EFFS at 2 months was not statistically significant, BLM ip after pericardial drainage appears to be safe and effective in allover for management of MPE. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.